alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 35.1







Statement of Compliance of The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee.
  I, James W. P. Hall, Vice President of The Bank of New York Mellon, a New York corporation (the “Trustee”), state:
  (a) A review of the Trustee’s activities for the period from January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012 (the “Reporting Period”) and of the Trustee’s performance under the Standard Terms for Trust Agreements dated July 15, 2010 between MS Structured Asset Corp. as depositor (the “Depositor”) and the Trustee, as trustee and securities intermediary, in each case amended by a series supplement between the Depositor and the Trustee (as amended in each such case, the “Trust Agreement”), has been made under my supervision.
  (b)  To the best of my knowledge and based on such review, the Trustee has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Trust Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period for CMT Linked Trust Units Series 2010-01.
 
 
  The Bank of New York Mellon, as TrusteeDate: March  8, 2013

/s/ James W. P. HallJames W. P. HallVice President
No. 51094.

#### Protests 44709-K, etc., of Biddle Purchasing Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2007199EN.01002503.xml

| 25.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 199/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/25

---

Order of the President of the Court of 18 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-41/07) (1)

1

(2007/C 199/43)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Language of the case: Portuguese

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.

1

---
# C_2007283EN.01001201.xml

| 24.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/12

---

Appeal brought on 28 August 2007 by Waterford Wedgwood plc against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 June 2007 in Case T-105/05: Assembled Investments (Proprietary) Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-398/07 P)

(2007/C 283/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Waterford Wedgwood plc (represented by: J. Pagenberg, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Assembled Investments (Proprietary) Ltd, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 June 2007 in Case T-105/05 |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 June 2007 in Case T-105/05

| — | refer the case back to the Court of First Instance |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the Court of First Instance

| — | order OHIM and Assembled Investments to bear the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM and Assembled Investments to bear the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant claims that the Court of First Instance violated Article 8(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (1) in that it applied erroneous legal criteria in determining that the conflicting goods are not similar.

1

The Appellant further claims that the Court of First Instance violated Article 8(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation by holding, in paragraph 34 of its judgment, contrary to the Board of Appeal, that consumers would not consider the respective goods to be similar, without any evidentiary basis for this finding, which is thus based on a distortion of the facts.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).

1

---
AFS-13-229-E 

February 20, 2013 

Mr. Mario R. Sotolongo 

4373 Ford Road 

Ann Arbor, MI 48105 

Dear Mr. Sotolongo: 

This letter is in response to your correspondence sent to the public docket dated 

February 8, 2013 (public docket No. FAA-2011-0563) petitioning the Federal Aviation 

Administration for an exemption from § 91.109(a) and (b)(3) of 14 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR). That exemption allowed you to conduct flight instruction in Beechcraft 

Bonanza, Debonair, Baron, and TravelAir airplanes equipped with a functioning throwover 

wheel. 

On August 31, 2011, the FAA amended 14 CFR part 91 related to throwover control wheels 

(76 FR 54095). A copy of this rule change is enclosed for your information. 

Because the relief you seek is now covered under the new rule, we will take no further action 

on your petition. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Ida M. Klepper 

Manager, Airmen and 

Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           5,045
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,240
<ALLOWANCES>                                       753
<INVENTORY>                                      7,340
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,832
<PP&E>                                          16,272
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,973
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  44,851
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,989
<BONDS>                                         11,620
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,576
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,666
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    44,851
<SALES>                                         53,176
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                53,176
<CGS>                                           45,692
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   45,692
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 521
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,668
<INCOME-TAX>                                       535
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,133
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,133
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2007269EN.01001602.xml

| 10.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/16

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Klagenfurt (Austria), lodged on 9 July 2007 — A-Punkt Schmuckhandels GmbH v Claudia Schmidt

(Case C-315/07)

(2007/C 269/31)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Klagenfurt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A-Punkt Schmuckhandels GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Claudia Schmidt

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Does a rule of a Member State which prohibits the sale of silver jewellery by way of calling on private individuals for the purposes of selling, and collecting orders for, items of silver jewellery with a maximum individual value of EUR 40 constitute a restriction on the free movement of goods within the meaning of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC, if market access for Community goods is possible only by way of an additional burden on those goods in the form of the costs involved in changing marketing structures and making changes to, and extending, product ranges?
  If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does a rule of a Member State which prohibits the sale of silver jewellery by way of calling on private individuals for the purposes of selling, and collecting orders for, items of silver jewellery with a maximum individual value of EUR 40 constitute a restriction on the free movement of goods within the meaning of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC, if market access for Community goods is possible only by way of an additional burden on those goods in the form of the costs involved in changing marketing structures and making changes to, and extending, product ranges?

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

| 2. | Does a national rule which, contrary to Articles 28 EC and 30 EC, prohibits the sale of items of silver jewellery with a maximum individual value of EUR 40 by way of calling on private individuals for the purposes of selling, and collecting orders for, such silver jewellery constitute a justifiable and proportionate measure which precludes the right of an individual to sell items of silver jewellery with a maximum individual value of EUR 40 by way of calling on private individuals for the purposes of selling, and collecting orders for, silver jewellery? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does a national rule which, contrary to Articles 28 EC and 30 EC, prohibits the sale of items of silver jewellery with a maximum individual value of EUR 40 by way of calling on private individuals for the purposes of selling, and collecting orders for, such silver jewellery constitute a justifiable and proportionate measure which precludes the right of an individual to sell items of silver jewellery with a maximum individual value of EUR 40 by way of calling on private individuals for the purposes of selling, and collecting orders for, silver jewellery?

---
Jump to navigation

            - About
            - Browse Collections
            - Advanced Search
            - Contact

## You are here

- Home  › 
- Browse Collections  › 
- U.S. Government Posters

# Yeah, I saw that package just sitting there-but I didn't want to overreact; first lesson in anti-terrorism, know what is normal in order to detect the unusual.

                - U.S. Government Posters

## Description

                    -           Title        
                    -  Yeah, I saw that package just sitting there-but I didn't want to overreact; first lesson in anti-terrorism, know what is normal in order to detect the unusual. 
                    -           Creator        
                    -  United States. American Forces Information Service 
                    -           Publisher        
                    -  American Forces Information Service, Department of Defense 
                    -           Description        
                    -  Shipping list no.: 91-300-P. 
                    -           Subject: Time        
                    -  1990-2000 
                    -           Subject: Place        
                    -  United States 
                    -           Series Title        
                    -  Defense billboard ; #39; Defense billboard (1988) ; # 39. 
                    -           Physical Description        
                    -  156 × 44 cm 
                    -           Number of Pages        
                    -  1 
                    -           Host institution        
                    -  University of Iowa. Libraries. Government Publications 
                    -           Digitization Specifications        
                    -  Scanned with Zeutschel OS 12000 Scanner at 300 ppi, 24-bit color. Archival tiff image available. 
                    -           Rights Management        
                    -  This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. 
                    -           Contact Information        
                    -  Please contact the Government Publications Department at the University of Iowa Libraries: lib-govpub@uiowa.edu. 
                    -           Item Type (AAT)        
                    -  Posters 
                    -           Item Type (IMT)        
                    -  jpeg 

                - Contact the Libraries
                - Library locations & hours
                - News & Events
                - Help using the Libraries
                - Assistance for people with disabilities
                - Our diversity statement
                - Thank a Librarian
                - Web site/page feedback  OR  general suggestions
                -  

                -  
                - 100 Main Library (LIB)
                - 125 West Washington St.
                - Iowa City, IA 52242-1420
                - 319-335-5299 (Service Desk)
                - ©2020  The University of Iowa
                -
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED September 14, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

---------------------- No. 06-10150 Summary Calendar

---------------------- JOSEPH TARANTINO Plaintiff - Appellant

v. DAIMLERCHRYSLER FINANCIAL SERVICES AMERICAS LLC Defendant - Appellee

----------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth

No. 4:05-CV-569

------------------------ Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * This suit grew out of the efforts of plaintiff-appellant Joseph Tarantino to seek employment with defendant-appellee DaimlerChrysler Financial Services Americas LLC (“DCS”) in 2003. The efforts were unsuccessful and Tarantino sued DCS in state court in Texas, alleging that DCS owed Tarantino, as a “prospective employee,” a “duty to notify” him in a timely manner2

that he was declined for employment. The case was removed to federal court. The district court dismissed Tarantino’s complaint under FED . R. C IV . P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, holding that, under the facts alleged, DCS had no legal duty to Tarantino, as a prospective employee, under Texas law. The district court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order addressed not only the facts alleged in Tarantino’s complaint but also the facts set out in Tarantino’s response to DCS’s motion to dismiss, “[g]iving the plaintiff the benefit of every doubt.” On appeal, Tarantino’s brief continues to claim that he could allege additional facts that would support an alternative theory of recovery, but (assuming arguendo that setting such facts out in his appellate brief would be timely) he fails to set out what those facts are. The main focus of his brief, however, is on his argument that the district court abused its discretion in denying Tarantino’s motion for leave to amend his pleading. DCS points out that Tarantino’s only requested amendment was included in the “Request for Relief” section of his district court brief where he asked for permission to amend his complaint if the district court were to determine that he failed to state a claim. Tarantino is correct that FED . R. C IV . P. 15(a) does allow a plaintiff to amend its pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is filed. His problem - and it is a fatal problem - is that he never furnished the district court with the substance of a proposed amendment other3

than to allege more facts and legal theories in his brief, facts and theories which would not have prevented the dismissal of his case. Under the circumstances, the district court did not err in failing to give Tarantino an opportunity to amend his pleading. The theories he alludes to in his appellate brief would fare no better. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Thomas Lucas o/b/o Ivy McCoy,

Plaintiff

 v.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action 2:11-cv-00429

Judge Economus

Magistrate Judge Abel

Report and Recommendation

This matter is before the Magistrate Judge on defendant Commissioner of Social

Security Michael J. Astrue’s January 6, 2012 motion to dismiss (doc. 15).

Defendant maintains that plaintiff cannot pursue his Title XVI claim for

Supplemental Security Income benefits. Even if it is determined that the claimant was

disabled, plaintiff has not established that he meets the eligibility requirements to

receive any underpayment that could be awarded based on plaintiff’s claim for

Supplemental Security Income benefits claim. Plaintiff does not oppose defendant’s

motion. See doc. 18. 

The Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that defendant Commissioner of Social

Security Michael J. Astrue’s January 6, 2012 motion to dismiss (doc. 15) be GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s claim for Supplemental Security Income benefits under Title XVI should be

Case: 2:11-cv-00429-PCE-MRA Doc #: 19 Filed: 03/07/12 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2

DISMISSED. This action continues with respect to plaintiff’s claim for benefits under

Title II of the Social Security Act.

If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within

fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties a motion for reconsideration by the

Court, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part thereof

in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B); Rule 72(b),

Fed. R. Civ. P.

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and

Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District

Judge and waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-152 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981);

United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005); Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373,

380 (6th Cir. 1995). Even when timely objections are filed, appellate review of issues not

raised in those objections is waived. Willis v. Sullivan, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991).

s/ Mark R. Abel 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 2:11-cv-00429-PCE-MRA Doc #: 19 Filed: 03/07/12 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
"richardastrust.com" <richard@astrust.com> 

08/29/2007 01:39 AM To

Margaret Sheppard/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

bcc

Subject

factory setting

For Follow Up:

Normal Priority

History:

This message has been forwarded.

Dear Margaret:

In a factory setting, majority of the new AC or refrigerator units are 

manufactored in China.

Any company producing the units will have a machine that automaticly 

charges and adds the refrigerant and oil to the system. This machine will 

also evacuate (remove the moisture)

in the system before charging. All the worker has to do is connect and 

disconnect the nozzle. It is usually a quick disconnect. The rest is all 

done by computer and the machine is programed to only allow so much 

refrigerant and oil. The worker has nothing to do with this. The machine 

is basically a production-line type. 

As far as the risk and engineering control - that I cannot answer, that 

is, China or a third world country where they never heard of OSHA.

Richard

Richard Maruya

phone 808 2351890 

fax 808 235 0116

cell 808 5614688

e mail richard@maruya.net or richard@astrust.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged 

information, if you are not the intended recipient, or the person 

responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, then 

please notify us by return e-mail immediately. Should you have received 

this e-mail in error then you should not copy this for any purpose nor 

disclose its contents to any other person.
NO. 07-04-0245-CR IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL B MARCH 8, 2 006

______________________________ ADAM GRIM ALDO, Appellant

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_________________________________ FROM THE 137 TH DISTRIC T COURT O F LUBBOCK COUNTY; NO. 98-428,567; HON. CECIL G. PURYEAR, PRESIDING

_______________________________ Memorandum Opinion

_______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Appellant, Adam Grimaldo, ap peals from an order revoking his probatio n and sentencing him to seven yea rs confinement f or possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine)with in tent to de liver. Appe llan t wa s convicted of that offense on October 25, 2000, and place d on community s upervisi on for fi ve year s. The State thereafter

sought torevoke hi s community s upervisi on on the basis that he 1) committed
an offense against thelaws of thi s State, 2) fail ed to avoid i njurious or vicious habits, and2

3) failed to avoid persons or places of disr

eputable or harmful character. After conducting a hearing on the motion in conj unction wi th the trial in Cause No. 2003-404,575, the tria l court revoked appellant’s probation. On appeal, appellant

does not urg e any issu es other than t hose prese nted with respect to his conviction in Cause No. 2003-404,575. Furthermore, the evidence utiliz ed to revoke hi s commun ity superv ision was the sam e used to obtain the conviction in Cause No. 2003-404,575. Thejudgment in t he latter caus e having been revers ed due to error in overruli ng appellant’s mot ion to suppress ev idence, we also reve rse the order revoking his probation and reman d the cause for fu rther proceedings.

Per Curiam
Do not publish

.
No. 43020.

#### Protest 965683-G of Quong Lee & Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of fish, lard, and beans similar to that involved in Abstract 42516. The claim at 20 percent under paragraph 1558 was therefore sustained.
#### Tiffany & Co. *v.*United States

No. 6665.

Entry No. 709073/1-2, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, September 1942, etc.

Certified September 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., October 15, 1942, etc.

(Decided December 23, 1946)

*■Sharretts & Hillis (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Olives, Presiding Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.